Moog, Inc v. Lunin

Filing 920070214


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1661 MOOG, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEPAN V. LUNIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00238-RBS) Submitted: January 17, 2007 Decided: February 14, 2007 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stepan V. Lunin, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Roy Zahn, MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Norfolk, Virginia; William Harrison Baxter, II, MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stepan V. Lunin appeals the district court's order granting Moog, Inc.'s ("Moog") motion for a preliminary injunction against him. court did not We have reviewed the record and find the district abuse its discretion in granting the motion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Moog, Inc. v. Lunin, No. 2:06-cv-00238-RBS (E.D. Va. June 7, 2006). Further, we grant Moog's motions for protective orders, filed September 6, 2006, September 11, 2006, September 15, 2006, September 25, 2006, and September 29, 2006, in which Moog seeks to seal various pleadings Lunin filed with this court. However, we deny Moog's September 18, 2006 motion for a protective order because the document this motion targets was never filed with this court. Further, we deny Moog's August 29, 2006 motion for a protective order because it is duplicative of the relief requested in the September 6, 2006 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 2 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?